From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10290 invoked by alias); 3 May 2004 18:01:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10257 invoked from network); 3 May 2004 18:01:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 May 2004 18:01:32 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.149.187]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id BRW05500; Mon, 3 May 2004 21:01:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 18:01:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <2719-Mon03May2004210049+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: orjan.friberg@axis.com, kettenis@chello.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org In-reply-to: <40965FAE.8090009@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Mon, 03 May 2004 11:05:18 -0400) Subject: Re: Display of read/access watchpoints when HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <407282F4.2080602@axis.com> <20040406142228.GA29473@nevyn.them.org> <6654-Thu15Apr2004111217+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <407E8CEF.2050007@axis.com> <407FC69A.1000701@axis.com> <1438-Sat17Apr2004112204+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <4083E930.8040005@axis.com> <4087DFB6.1030801@axis.com> <200405012117.i41LHZSR001291@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40962BF0.3030707@axis.com> <40965FAE.8090009@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 11:05:18 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > Check these bug/threads threads for background info. > > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=967 > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-09/msg00739.html Thanks for the pointers. Having read them, I wonder: what targets can benefit from this change? As similar discussuions in the past indicated, targets such as the i386, which have a small number of debug registers, can nevertheless support an infinite number of watchpoints if they watch the same memory region. So, in general, for such a machinery to be useful on x86 at least, we need to pass more info about the watchpoints to get meaningful results. In any case, I think this particular issue if whether a target could accomodate all the watchpoints that GDB wants to insert is not a very important one. Currently, GDB simply tries to insert them all, and if that fails, it barfs. If the procedure to find out whether they could be all accomodated is going to be as complex as actually inserting them, nothing is gained from making TARGET_CAN_USE_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINT more accurate than it is now.